Entire Issue (PDF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
ELEVATING BLACK EXCELLENCE REGIONAL SUMMIT SERIES a Showcase for Black Partners
NETWORK Presents ELEVATING BLACK EXCELLENCE REGIONAL SUMMIT SERIES A Showcase for Black Partners April 27 | Northeast/Mid-Atlantic | 8:30am - 4:15pm ET ELEVATING BLACK EXCELLENCE REGIONAL SUMMIT SERIES | PAGE 1 VERSION 8 | APRIL 26, 2021 4:11 PM OCS ADVISORY OUTSIDE BOARD COUNSEL SEARCH Connie Brenton OCS VP, Law, Technology and Operations NetApp 1 Search by Ethnicity Mike Caplan Chief Operating Officer Goodwin Procter LLP Lindsey Dates Partner Barnes & Thornburg LLP Joe Drayton Partner Cooley LLP 2 Search by Industry Tara Elliott Partner Latham & Watkins LLP Sherrie Farrell Member Dykema Gossett PLLC Lisa Gilford Partner Search by Practice Area Sidley Austin LLP 3 Jonathan Goins Partner Lewis Brisbois LLP Darren Guy Director of Legal Operations AIG In June of 2021, Chief Legal Executive will OCS ADVISORY launch a beta version of Outside Counsel BOARD Search (OCS), a digital directory and resource for identifying, researching, and sourcing Tanya attorneys at law firms across the country. Hairston-Whitner Assistant General Counsel The Home Depot Search Results 4 John Iino Partner Reed Smith LLP Karen Jordan Partner Dentons James McClammy Partner Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Mark Roellig Senior Client Advisor Perkins Coie LLP Adwoa Seymour Assistant General Counsel The OCS will serve as a platform for corporate legal departments to Cox Enterprises, Inc. identify, qualify, and engage with attorneys of color at major law firms while increasing awareness of their individual accomplishments. Merle Vaughn Managing Partner The OCS is a proprietary online platform searchable by name, exper- Major, Lindsay & tise, self-reported ethnicity, education, firm, or specialty. Participating Africa attorneys will create and maintain their own profiles on the platform and populate a library of matters that highlights their talents and experience. -
Waiver of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Congressional Investigations: What Congress, Witnesses, and Lawyers Can Learn from the Irs Scandal
N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Quorum JASON KORNMEHL WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS: WHAT CONGRESS, WITNESSES, AND LAWYERS CAN LEARN FROM THE IRS SCANDAL May 8, 2015 Abstract: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regula- tions, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” These few sentences uttered by Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS Tax Ex- empt Organizations Division, ignited a debate among crimi- nal law scholars over whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This Article analyzes what constitutes a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination in the context of congressional investiga- tions and asserts that Lois Lerner likely waived her right to remain silent. An examination of Lerner’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee illustrates that the issue of Fifth Amendment waivers in congressional hearings is com- plicated and highly fact-specific. Thus, this Article proposes measures that Congress should adopt to ensure that com- plex questions regarding waiver do not arise in future con- gressional hearings. In addition, this Article offers guidance to lawyers who represent clients in congressional investiga- tions by suggesting how witnesses should invoke their right to remain silent in congressional hearings. Author: Jason Kornmehl is a 2014 graduate of The George Washington University Law School. © 2015 N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Published by the 2014–15 Editorial Board of the N.Y.U. -
Executive Branch Enforcement of Congressional Investigations
TROUBLE AHEAD, TROUBLE BEHIND: EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS Michael D. Bopp,* Gustav W. Eyler,** & Scott M. Richardson*** INTRODUCTION ................................................. 454 I. CONGRESS’S POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE INVESTIGATIVE REQUESTS ............................... 455 A. Congress’s Investigative Power ..................... 455 B. Congress’s Contempt Powers ....................... 459 1. Inherent Contempt Power ....................... 459 2. Criminal Contempt Power ...................... 461 3. Civil Contempt Power .......................... 464 C. Congress’s Use of Its Contempt Powers ............. 466 II. EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................................ 467 A. Relevant Criminal Laws ............................ 468 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 .............................. 468 2. 18 U.S.C. § 1505 .............................. 470 3. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1519 .................... 472 4. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1622 .................... 473 5. 18 U.S.C. § 371................................ 474 B. Executive Branch Enforcement Proceedings ......... 474 1. Executive Branch Actions Punishing Obstruction of Congressional Investigations ................. 475 2. Executive Branch Use of Congressional Investigation Findings .......................... 479 III. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 481 A. A Shift of Power from Congress to the Executive Branch ........................................... -
The IRS Harassment Scandal
The IRS Harassment Scandal: A Timeline of “Reform” Documenting Efforts by the Regulatory Community to Police Political Speech Timeline Events Current as of December 7, 2015 In May 2013, reports surfaced and investigations began into the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service had been scrutinizing groups applying for 501(c)(4) status using politically biased criteria. Beginning in March 2010, groups with names containing the words “Tea Party” or “patriot” were singled out for greater IRS scrutiny. Later, in an attempt to change from overtly partisan to more general criteria, the IRS shifted to targeting organizations with the goal of “teaching about the Constitution.” In addition to using these outrageous criteria, IRS officials were dishonest about their actions, repeatedly testifying before Congress that there was no targeting program. After admitting that the targeting had occurred, the IRS suggested that it was merely the result of a rogue group of agents in its Cincinnati office – a claim that has since been debunked by Congressional investigators. After submitting applications for nonprofit status, conservative-leaning social welfare groups waited years to hear back from the IRS. When they finally did hear back about the status of their application, the responses came in the form of demands for additional information. In many cases, the IRS required that groups send the agency their donor lists, names of board members, copies of minutes from all board meetings, resumes of individuals involved in the organization, and copies of all social media postings. Some organizations were asked to provide reports about the books their members had read as a group.